Development agreements require legal possession or effective enjoyment for capital gains transfer; permissive possession and deferred consideration de...
Prolonged sterilisation of development rights supports capital-gains treatment, while business-income disallowances cannot govern capital-gains comput...
Additional evidence in transfer pricing dispute leads to fresh examination, while tax deductions, TDS credit, fee and refund interest require verifica...
Category II AIF pass-through taxation preserves non-business income character; investment receipts cannot be reclassified without applying recognised ...
The CESTAT ruled that the leasing of "Scaffolding items" by the Appellant, on which VAT had been paid as a deemed sale within the meaning of Article 366(29A)(d) of the Constitution of India, did not attract service tax liability. The Tribunal held that there was a transfer of the right to use, possession, and effective control over the scaffolding items in favor of the lessees. Consequently, the transaction qualified as a deemed sale liable for VAT, and not a service subject to service tax. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal.
The CESTAT ruled that the leasing of "Scaffolding items" by the Appellant, on which VAT had been paid as a deemed sale within the meaning of Article 366(29A)(d) of the Constitution of India, did not attract service tax liability. The Tribunal held that there was a transfer of the right to use, possession, and effective control over the scaffolding items in favor of the lessees. Consequently, the transaction qualified as a deemed sale liable for VAT, and not a service subject to service tax. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
